Here's a great article about story structure and translating your idea for a film into an actual screenplay by Jen Grisanti, a former exec who cut her teeth at Spelling Productions and who went on to become one of the most respected and sought-after script consultants in Hollywood. She is currently an instructor NBC's Writing on the Verge program as well.

One of the tricks I use when I get stuck is to change how I'm writing. I'll try something like just writing dialog and no screen directions, or writing what I want the dialogs to mean as opposed to the actual wording, or writing what the subtext is (the character is really saying, please don't go, but their words are masking that, etc.).

Another thing that works for me is to write scenes that don't belong in the script, just to get a feel for how the characters interact, like, "what would the conversation be like if they were stuck in traffic after a long day?" or "what would they do if they saw a mugging?" or whatever. It's a good way to figure out who the people are and how they react, which can in turn suggest things about how they might behave in the actual scenes in the script.

Years ago, I did something similar for a project I was working on with a friend. My friend was dissatisfied however with the development of two characters - a couple - in the story. So I spent a weekend writing just a blurb about these two, what their daily life was like, their routine, their breakfast conversation with the Sunday paper, etc. to illustrate everything else we'd already sort of devised for the couple in the actual short film we were ramping up to produce.

Those breakfast scenes never made it into the film, but they were hugely informative for the characters as we continued writing and for the actors when we were filming. And while Sunday breakfast might not be the most exciting or original of scenes, for our purposes it worked quite nicely.

Now, see, that's interesting for me. As the executive producer and being in charge of the casting, I find actors who are intriguing people. Our scripts are bare bones in terms of how the characters interact with each other, and I put it on our cast to put how they see the characters into their performances.

For example, Rachel and Jeremy were discussing their characters. Both work the third shift, she as third shift watch commander, he as third shift senior medical officer. They took themselves aside during pre-shoot activities (makeup, wardrobe, practice, lighting and sound) and ironed out how they wanted to interact with each other. When we were ready to shoot, they nailed their scenes. Just absolutely nailed them. That's what we like to see, and for the most part we do.

When the second season rolls out starting in January, I think people we see what I'm writing about, and appreciate the talent of the people involved.

^^^Actors can bring a lot to the table, but, obviously, you still need a solid table.

On Polaris the two leads came up with a small and subtle bit of physical business which implied things about the relationship of their characters which were not in the script per se. It tells us what they're thinking in a subtle way.

This is a great article by Timothy Cooper about short films, but has a few great nuggest that could easily apply to writing as well:

Sharing here because by and large, the majority of the fan films we enounter here have more in common with short films than they do with features, and sometimes more than even actual broadcast hour-longs.

The writer/director clearly demonstrates a personal connection to the story.
In Forever’s Gonna Start Tonight, the filmmaker has probably struggled with seeking acceptance, just like her lead. And we can all identify with the idea of having a crush on a teacher. The Crush’s screenwriter likely thought, What if I had taken that crush to the next level? For Please Say Something, writer/director/animator David O’Reilly clearly has a powerful and dark view of the struggles a relationship entails, and how two different people can feel as alien to each other as a cat and a mouse.

Click to expand...

They tell a story of one character’s or couple’s journey—but no more.
These shorts don’t overreach. Remember: A short film is not a feature. It has little room for subplots, secondary characters, montages, or epic scope. It covers a single dilemma and resolves it in some way by the end. Too often, writers attempt to confront multiple dilemmas, introduce us to more than two main characters, or recreate a whole chunk of their feature film. A short is not the place for any of that. It’s the chance to attack one major scene or conflict—nothing more. Takeaway: Limit your reach. Utilize the “short” part of this medium by telling just one story and telling it well.

Click to expand...

They feature memorable characters.
Film and TV are about characters; even the biggest special-effects-heavy movies are nothing without memorable leads. Gun battles, alien invasions, the apocalypse—they’re all really about the characters these events happen to. These short films demonstrate that the filmmakers can build characters that sear themselves in our mind, even in the space of just 10 or 15 minutes. Plot, twists, and story are all important, but without someone we can empathize with, your film will be forgotten. Takeaway: Give your characters strong personalities, quirks, wants, and goals. That way, we’ll care about them, and willingly follow them on their journey.

Click to expand...

The entire article is worth reading and isn't all that long, but these points especially are ones I would point all fan film writers and producers to consider and pay attention to.

Jumping back a bit to Dramatic Structure, and specifically 3-act vs. 5-act vs. other forms, I was working on an episode template for a proposed series and in doing some research on various approaches I came upon a blog which had some posts I thought might be useful to some of you here.

Heres another little fun nugget. Many Trek fans are pretty familiar with the Writer's Guides to the various shows, and especially the do's and don'ts from the original, but it's rare to encounter such notes for other series, especially Star Trek's 1960s contemporaries. Well, I found this little gem (link) related to the long-running NBC series Bonanza:

Part of a Series: Exploring the David Dortort Archives

At the beginning of each month, Project Archivist Mallory Furnier explores the donated papers of novelist, screenwriter, and producer David Dortort. Click here for other entries in the series.

Although David Dortort created the television series Bonanza, it took the talents of multiple writers to bring the Cartwright family to television each week. An article by Nancy Vogel in the December 1968 issue of Writer’s Digest outlined seven rules from Dortort for writers adding their imagination to the Bonanza canon:

2. Because of the color requirements, exterior night shots should be avoided if possible, with the exception of the Ponderosa ranch house and barn, which are located on stage.

3. Stories must always deeply involve the Cartwrights. We do not want the Cartwrights ‘looking in’ on the problems of someone else. At times we have used, and will continue to use, guest stars of considerable stature, but when we do the problem is still to be a Cartwright problem and the solution a Cartwright solution.

4. The Cartwrights must never be cast as ‘do-​gooders.’ In other words, the problem should never become a Cartwright problem merely by having the Cartwrights push their way into it.

5. We often have a surfeit of Indian stories. Forget, too, any stories concerning a ‘wife’ showing up, or someone claiming to own the Ponderosa, or the young, misunderstood rebel who regenerates because of the Cartwrights’ tolerance and example.

6. We have many stories submitted in which the townspeople ‘turn against’ the Cartwrights. Unless the story is truly unique and believable, this area should be avoided. The Cartwrights are too intelligent in their behavior, too respected and too prominent to have such a thing happen.

7. What we do want is Western action and Western adventure, concerning a worthy and dramatic problem for the Cartwrights, and strong opponents. We want human drama built around a specific locale and specific period in the country’s history; simple, basic stories as seen through the eyes of Ben, Hoss, and Little Joe Cartwright, and Candy.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Points like this are very similar to those in the Trek Writer's Guides, especially those about involving the main characters and seeing the stories through their eyes, something which a lot of fanfilm writers need to cleave to.

I was digging through some very old paperwork last night and ran across this, back from whence I (unsuccessfully) tried to sell a script to ST:TNG. Unlike some others, I didn't go the "open door policy" method but rather got an agent (in fact, mine was Ron D. Moore's first agent) who had contacts with the show. This is why I was able to submit some written pitches instead of spec scripts (though I did those as well). I thought some of you might be interested in the kind of feedback one gets from actual writing departments.

One thing you'll notice is that the memo very carefully sidesteps suggesting that the author do anything because the WGA would look upon that as an "assignment". Instead the memo points out things that could potentially be issues with the stories pitched.

I'd forgotten what a lot of these pitches were until I dug them out of my files, and in retrospect it's obvious that most were too plot-centric and not about the characters propelling the story. Also, I should have genericized the aliens instead of doing callbacks to earlier shows, since that made the stories seem more "gimmick"y than they actually were.

And one of my few complaints about TNG was that we never saw most of the aliens we met in TOS and never found out what happened to any of them. It seems to me there could have been the twice-a-year script which had a really good story which happened to involve a race we'd already met. I don't see why that's any more gimmicky than repeated Q stories.

OTOH, I confess TNG is my favorite ST series, so it's hard to argue with results.

And one of my few complaints about TNG was that we never saw most of the aliens we met in TOS and never found out what happened to any of them. It seems to me there could have been the twice-a-year script which had a really good story which happened to involve a race we'd already met. I don't see why that's any more gimmicky than repeated Q stories.

Click to expand...

barb, that's TNG keeps using and using the few antagonist character the audience DOES like until they become a shadow of what they were initially...(the Borg, the Dominion, Q, etc...)

''the producers often hesitate to employ what they refer to as ''gimmicks'' from the original series''...

Perhaps they should have decided to use the gimmick that might have made Riker, Troi, Crusher, LaForge, Wesley actually compelling as characters, hmmm?

Click to expand...

I found them perfectly compelling, nor am I alone. Mileage, clearly, varies. Do we really need yet another TNG vs TOS, 'my show is better than yours' debate? Or maybe we can just agree that people have widely varying tastes and leave it at that.

''the producers often hesitate to employ what they refer to as ''gimmicks'' from the original series''...

Perhaps they should have decided to use the gimmick that might have made Riker, Troi, Crusher, LaForge, Wesley actually compelling as characters, hmmm?

Click to expand...

I found them perfectly compelling, nor am I alone. Mileage, clearly, varies. Do we really need yet another TNG vs TOS, 'my show is better than yours' debate? Or maybe we can just agree that people have widely varying tastes and leave it at that.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Bixby: I found all the characters on TNG quite compelling, thankyouverymuch. To each his own.

The other thing to consider is that Roddenberry had basically laid down a veto on bringing back aliens from TOS. He was against Worf's existence, for crying out loud. That we got Vulcans, Klingons, and Romulans isn't altogether surprising but let's remember the context of that first year on the show when leveling our criticisms, shall we?

Hau’oli LanuiSee where the sky meets the sea, It calls mePremium Member

I was digging through some very old paperwork last night and ran across this, back from whence I (unsuccessfully) tried to sell a script to ST:TNG. Unlike some others, I didn't go the "open door policy" method but rather got an agent (in fact, mine was Ron D. Moore's first agent) who had contacts with the show. This is why I was able to submit some written pitches instead of spec scripts (though I did those as well). I thought some of you might be interested in the kind of feedback one gets from actual writing departments.

One thing you'll notice is that the memo very carefully sidesteps suggesting that the author do anything because the WGA would look upon that as an "assignment". Instead the memo points out things that could potentially be issues with the stories pitched.

I'd forgotten what a lot of these pitches were until I dug them out of my files, and in retrospect it's obvious that most were too plot-centric and not about the characters propelling the story. Also, I should have genericized the aliens instead of doing callbacks to earlier shows, since that made the stories seem more "gimmick"y than they actually were.

Click to expand...

Did you ever rework them? Ever actually write a script based on any of the pitches? Just wondering…

I actually wrote "The Day Before Doomsday" and "None So Noble". I don't recall the dates they were submitted, though. I'll have to look in my files. I also wrote one more titled "The Unseen". Partly as possible submissions and partly just to get the hang of writing teleplays. "The Unseen" was never submitted, and I really liked it except for the last act, where I overreached. These were all before my agent explained to me that the show was typically resistant to use elements and characters created by non-staff writers because of potential payments around their re-use, so I stopped using them on my later pitches.

Here's the top of Act One for "None So Noble":

ACT ONE​

FADE IN:

EXT. SPACE - THE ENTERPRISE (STOCK)

The Enterprise comes out of warp.

INT. ENTERPRISE - BRIDGE

Picard, Troi and Riker are their regular places. Worf studies the Tactical panel intently. Data emerges from the aft turbolift, sees Worf, and moves to his side.

￼

DATASogh worv. ghorgh pat'oghwI'wa'
yuQvagh maH paw?​

Worf is so involved that he doesn't catch on at first.￼

￼

WORF
We are entering orbit in--
(it registers)
You spoke Klingonese!

DATA
In preparation for this mission, I have
memorized nineteen dialects of
Klingonese, and reviewed all Klingon
related material available through the
Starfleet database.

WORF
(skeptical)
Including "batlh Qu' je" by T'loran?

DATA
Yes. An intriguing analysis of the
concepts of honor and duty. However, I
believe that "'Iw qul je" by Nihwad is
a far better work.​

Worf doesn't like having Data an expert in his field.

WORFThat is a matter of opinion.
￼
DATA
The database contains little
information about Azarbia V. Can you
tell me about the planet?

WORF
It was the... I...
(a little embarrassed)
I know nothing useful about the planet
or its inhabitants.

DATA
As it is one of the founding planets of
the Klingon Empire, I had assumed that
its history would be important.

WORF
Only Klingon history is important to
the Empire, not that of--
(stops himself from saying
something nasty)
--traitors.​

The HAILING SOUND issues from Worf's console, sparing him from having to answer more of Data's questions.

Click to expand...

I verbally pitched some new ideas to my agent in summer 1990 and one, called "Skin Deep", cast Riker in a heavy role where he actually menaced Troi, and in the end we'd learn that his body had been hijacked via a neural implant and he was being "puppetted" by a Romulan agent in order to create a false emergency, cause a saucer separation, and steal the stardrive in order to deliver it to the Romulans. In the end Troi was going to have to risk killing Riker to stop it, so it really would've been a good use of her. This was a season before "The Mind's Eye", so they hadn't really done anything like it at that point. That was the one my agent said "That one," to, but by then I got wrapped up in other work and put the Trek script pitching aside. Probably too bad because "Skin Deep" could have been a really good vehicle for Frakes and Sirtis to stretch, I think.

''the producers often hesitate to employ what they refer to as ''gimmicks'' from the original series''...

Perhaps they should have decided to use the gimmick that might have made Riker, Troi, Crusher, LaForge, Wesley actually compelling as characters, hmmm?

Click to expand...

I found them perfectly compelling, nor am I alone. Mileage, clearly, varies. Do we really need yet another TNG vs TOS, 'my show is better than yours' debate? Or maybe we can just agree that people have widely varying tastes and leave it at that.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Bixby: I found all the characters on TNG quite compelling, thankyouverymuch. To each his own.

The other thing to consider is that Roddenberry had basically laid down a veto on bringing back aliens from TOS. He was against Worf's existence, for crying out loud. That we got Vulcans, Klingons, and Romulans isn't altogether surprising but let's remember the context of that first year on the show when leveling our criticisms, shall we?

Click to expand...

I am aware of this rule. I'm also aware that Roddenberry and others came up with this when TNG was supposed to be more like its season one, stand-alone episodes and, like the original Star Trek, always stay out in deep space and likely never focus on Earth nor showcase Starfleet physically. But with television series being affected by the Hill Street Blues effect (continued storylines, overall arch, some soap elements, etc.) this was all changed...except some of those in charge, namely Rick Berman (the ''producer'' mentioned in Maurice's letter), never adapted that edict to the sweeping changes made in late 80s television and their own series.

I admit my arrogance re: TNG characters, sorry if it rankles many of you, though I do have great affection for the first 6 seasons of DS9.

But I got plenty annoyed with the mention in Maurice's letter about Rick Berman's dislike for TOS ''gimmicks'' (what the hell is that?)...A good story is a good story is a good story...If a stellar writer like Alan Moore (yes, the British comics writer) can craft amazingly textured, mature and thought-provoquing stories out of what many might perceive as childish concepts in american/british comic books, then why can't his writers do the same for Andorians and Gorns?...

That he did not bother to try tells me that he, Rick Berman, was NOT doing his job, which was to grow his audience numbers as best he can by rethinking what does or does not work, as evidenced with latter-day Voyager and Enterprise's constant ratings plummet.

But again, sorry for my harsh words about TNG...I did like many aspects of it, but disliked quite a bit as well...